Hersh Goldberg-Polin Laid to Rest

Hersh Goldberg-Polin became, at least in the U.S., the face of the Hamas hostages when his parents spoke about their ordeal at the Democratic National Convention. This past weekend, his body was recovered, along with those of five other hostages. He may have been killed just hours earlier; this was reported by some outlets, but has not been confirmed. Yesterday, Goldberg-Polin's parents laid him to rest, while more than 17,000 viewers looked on, most of them courtesy of a livestream broadcast over the Internet.

Nobody would blame John Polin and Rachel Goldberg if they were angry, or if they decided to do some finger-pointing. However, that is not the direction they went. Here's Goldberg:

Hersh, for all these months, I have been in such torment and worry about you for every single millisecond of every single day... Now I no longer have to worry about you. I know you are no longer in danger. You are with beautiful Honor. He will show you around. You will hopefully meet my grandparents, who will adore you... I pray that your death will be a turning point in this horrible situation in which we are all entangled... If there was something we could have done to save you and we didn't think of it, I beg your forgiveness. We tried so very hard, so deeply and desperately... Finally, my sweet boy, finally, finally, finally, finally, you're free.

And Polin:

Hersh, I'm sorry. We're sorry. We failed. You didn't fail. You would have pushed harder, and we will push so that your death and that of all the soldiers will not be in vain. We will bring home the remaining hostages. Our hope is not lost yet. The life we had with you was a blessing, and now we will work so that your legacy will be a blessing. I love you.

There were also thousands of in-person attendees at the service, which was held in Jerusalem. Goldberg-Polin was interred at Givat Shaul Cemetery, which is the city's largest. It is also known as Har HaMenuchot, which means "Mount of Those who are Resting."

It goes without saying that the vast majority of people hope that Polin and Goldberg are right, and that this proves to be a turning point, pointing the way toward peace. Unfortunately, that vast majority does not appear to include the key Middle East players, the ones who are making the decisions. Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu knows full well that once this war ends, he will likely be out of power, and may be headed to prison. Plus, he's a hawk's hawk. So, he responded to the news of the six deaths with promises that there would be vengeance and a total defeat of Hamas. Meanwhile, the leaders of Hamas are also served by the current state of affairs, since they are destabilizing Israel and gaining attention for their cause (even if it's not clear to everyone exactly what that cause might be). Iran, who is paying the bills and pulling the strings for Hamas, is happy as a clam, too. Anything that creates chaos in Israel, and that makes it harder for the Middle East's anti-Iran bloc to function, is fan-damn-tastic as far as the Ayatollah is concerned.

That said, the pressure on the Netanyahu government is mounting. Joe Biden delivered a fiery speech on Sunday, and is reportedly considering ways to turn the screws with both Netanyahu and Hamas. We are skeptical that Biden has all that many options at his disposal, but if he does have any, he'll figure them out.

Meanwhile, and surely more importantly, there's a lot of domestic discord in Israel right now. Netanyahu and Israeli Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant (a well-known Netanyahu rival and skeptic) got into a public screaming match this weekend. There have been mass protests in Jerusalem and other cities over the past several days. There was also going to be a general strike of Israeli workers, until far-right elements of the Netanyahu government went to Israel's Labor Court and got a judge to shut it down.

We are not expert enough in this subject to make predictions. And even if we were, the current conflict between Israel and Hamas has been going on for over 300 days. The larger conflict between Israel and (some of) their neighbors has been going on for almost 80 years. The even larger conflict has been going on for centuries and millennia. That means that, if you have to guess, then the smart money is that the end of the war in Gaza is not imminent. That said, it does have to end sometime, and the Israeli people—a lot of them, at least—are clearly getting sick of the approach Netanyahu is pursuing.

Incidentally, there is another domestic politics angle to this. Tim Walz was campaigning at the Minnesota State Fair, and someone (presumably a reporter, though it's actually not 100% clear from the footage) asked him about the six dead hostages. Walz might not have heard the question. Or, he might have heard it and decided that the middle of a crowded event was not the place to answer. Either way, he did not answer. Afterwards, many right-wing pundits lambasted Walz for being a "coward" and "depraved" and part of a "Hamas faction" in the Democratic Party.

Walz did eventually make a statement on eX-Twitter:

The anguish of losing a child is something no family should have to endure. Gwen and I send our deepest condolences to the Goldberg-Polin family, after Hamas' murder of their son Hersh.

Hamas is a brutal terrorist organization—and we condemn their continued atrocities against both Americans and Israelis in the strongest possible terms.

Most right-wing types said this was too little, too late, apparently overlooking that, for example, it took Donald Trump a good 4 months to answer questions about how he plans to vote on the Florida abortion amendment. In any event, this has the feel of yet another desperate (and likely to fail) attempt to create a Harris-Walz scandal.

As to Hersh Goldberg-Polin, if it is appropriate for us to say so, may his memory be a blessing. (Z)

Voter Registrations Are Up

It is not so easy to track voter registration numbers. In part, that is because some states don't report the figures. In part, it is because even when they do report, they do it slowly. And in part, it is because some states report (again, often very slowly), but they don't register people by political party. In the latter circumstance, the numbers are somewhat instructive, but only somewhat.

The folks at TargetSmart decided to take a close look at 13 states that do report, and do break registrations down by party and demographics, and have issued an update for the month of July. The pollster/analyst decided to do a comparison of the week of July 21-28, 2020, versus July 21-28, 2024. They chose that timeframe, of course, because July 21, 2024, is the date Joe Biden withdrew from the race.

The thirteen states included in TargetSmart's study do a pretty good job of covering the gamut, from "swingy" to "not at all swingy," and from red to purple to blue. The states surveyed, from east to west, were Rhode Island, Vermont, Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, Wisconsin, Louisiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Wyoming and Nevada. Registration was up among all demographic groups considered in the study; here are the changes for each group, again comparing one week in July 2020 to one (very significant) week in July 2024:

Group	Increase
Republicans	7.8%
Men	17.1%
Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders	31.7%
Women	37.6%
Democrats	51.2%
Latinos/Latinas	63.2%
Voters 18-29	73.4%
Latinas	78.3%
Women 18-29	83.7%
Black People	85.8%
Black Women	98.4%
Latinas 18-29	149.7%
Black Women 18-29	175.8%

The tale the data tells couldn't be plainer. The switch from Joe Biden to Kamala Harris inspired a lot of young people, particularly young people of color, to get themselves registered. This trend presumably continued into August, for which numbers are not available as yet.

Note that we are not "all-in" on this data, for a couple of reasons. The first is that, in the end, it's just one week's worth of registrations, and our guess that the trends continued is just that, a guess. Second, TargetSmart is a Democratic-leaning pollster/analyst, and we are always nervous when information comes from a source that wears its politics on its sleeve.

That said, there is clearly something important going on with voter registration since Kamala Harris became the Democrats' presidential candidate. In just the last 2 weeks, we've seen stories about the noticeable increase in registrations in Virginia, Georgia, New Jersey, Arkansas, Massachusetts and Maine. Most of those stories specifically note that the most substantial increase is among Black women voters. So, TargetSmart probably isn't making it up.

The good news for the Democrats is that, as you might expect, newly registered voters are much more likely to vote than voters who have been registered for a long time. So, these folks who have signed up to vote since Harris' ascendancy are significantly more likely than not to become Harris-Walz voters. The big question is exactly how extensive the uptick in registrations is, and will be. Given the slow reporting of the figures, the full picture won't be known until after the election. However, for what it is worth, Tom Bonier, who oversaw the new study for TargetSmart, says the surge in registrations is even bigger than after the Dobbs decision (issued on June 24, 2022). And everyone knows how that worked out for the Democrats in the midterms. (Z)

MuskWatch, Part I: He's All-in on Trump

Elon Musk has made no secret of the fact that he would like to see Donald Trump back in the White House. The eX-Twitter owner gave back his much, much, much poorer buddy's eX-Twitter account. Then there was the one-on-one interview, though it was undermined by technical issues and low audience interest. On a near-daily basis, Musk also tweets something encouraging about Trump; literally while we were writing this he sent out a message declaring that polling has Trump ahead in the electoral vote, and that "A Trump victory is essential to defense of freedom of speech, secure borders, safe cities and sensible spending!"

Musk also posts plenty of anti-Harris material to his own account, and then uses his powers as owner to make sure the maximum number of people are exposed to his, well, propaganda. The South African is particularly obsessed with the notion that Harris is a communist, and so flogs that particular line of attack on a regular basis. Here, for example, is yesterday's entry:

No, we cannot believe it, because that is one of the least believable AI-generated images we've ever seen. As well as one of the least believable claims about Harris we've ever heard.

The question, at least in terms of things we care about, is whether Musk's cheerleading is actually doing Trump any good. Our gut feel is that the answer is "no." Only 25% of Americans use Twitter, and only 14% use it regularly. An overwhelming percentage of the engagement, both in terms of creating and viewing content, comes from a very small fraction of Americans, less than 5%. And that 5% tends to be overwhelmingly on the fringes, politically (and about 70% male, by the way). The upshot is that most people aren't listening to Musk, and those who are tend to be in the choir already.

What we did not think about is a notion raised in a piece published over the weekend by NBC's David Ingram, namely that Musk might actually be harming Trump with his support. Ingram observes that Musk is not only generally kind of toxic, but that he tends to embody many of the same bad qualities that Trump does: prone to lies and exaggerations, out-of-touch rich guy, anti-labor, indulges in casual bigotry, etc.

Heightening the potential Musk damage is the fact that the Harris campaign is very good with messaging, and has worked to set up a dichotomy of Trump and Musk as out-of-touch plutocrats vs. Harris and Walz as friends of labor and the working class. In this way, the Democrats are dusting off the playbook of 2012, when they managed to brand Republican nominee Mitt Romney in much the same way.

We are not sure if we do, or do not, buy Ingram's take, but we thought it was interesting enough to pass it along for readers' consideration. (Z)

MuskWatch, Part II: Consequences

We write fairly often about Elon Musk. Too often, for some readers' tastes. The reason we do it is that, by virtue of his fame and his ownership of eX-Twitter, he might well be the most important media figure of the current generation. The person he always makes us think of is William Randolph Hearst, who was also one of the richest people in the world, and who also mucked around in politics, and who was also a giant sh**-stirrer.

Another commonality between Musk and Hearst is that their words had consequences. In Hearst's case, he almost single-handedly created the Spanish-American War. That war left thousands of Americans, and tens of thousands of Spaniards and Cubans, dead. If you extend Hearst's responsibility to include the Philippine-American War, as well, then you can increase the American death toll to tens of thousands, and you can add on hundreds of thousands of Filipinos on top of that.

Musk's words also have consequences, sometimes violent consequences. We read several pieces about the recent riots in the U.K. such as this one from The Guardian, headlined "Inciting rioters in Britain was a test run for Elon Musk. Just see what he plans for America." We propose above that Musk's ability to change election outcomes is probably pretty minimal. But his ability to egg on extremists is real, as that piece explains.

As we so often do, we reached out to our British correspondents to give us a sense of exactly what happened. First, S.T. in Worcestershire, England, UK with a general overview:

One result of the U.K. general election being held on July 4 was that the country entered a quiet period politically. Parliament barely sat for a fortnight before going into recess for much of the summer (allowing all those 300+ new MPs to cultivate their constituencies). The new Labour government is still finding its feet, though its proposals on finance and planning/housing already look like an accident waiting to happen. The Conservatives have started a leadership contest lasting till November! However, just like nature, politics and the media abhor a vacuum.

Southport is a somewhat up-market holiday resort/residential area just north of Liverpool famed for its annual flower show. On Monday, July 29, a local dance studio held a Taylor Swift themed workshop aimed at local children on school holidays. A 17-year-old carrying a kitchen knife carried out a series of stabbings at the event resulting in three children dying and several more being injured.

Under English law, the identity of those under 18 charged with crimes is not routinely made public. Possibly because the assailant was local, the fact that he was non-white appears to have emerged on the internet very quickly and set the rumor mill working overtime. By Tuesday afternoon, the egregious Nigel Farage, leader of Reform U.K., and the newly elected MP for Clacton, was asking some very pointed questions and making speculation online, which did little to abate rising tensions. When a judge finally issued the identity of the suspect, he proved to be the son of two Rwandan refugees, and he was actually born in the U.K.

On Tuesday evening, a vigil was held in Southport in honor of the victims. There then followed a probably unlinked demonstration which rapidly descended into a riot. Its main target was a small mosque serving the town's tiny Muslim community. Thankfully, and more by luck than judgment, no one was injured.

Over the next week or so, disturbances and riots dominated by the far-right, often violent, took place in a number of towns and cities across the U.K., though notably none in Scotland and relatively few in the south of England. They were often centered on mosques or hotels temporarily housing asylum seekers waiting for their claims to be processed—ironic given that the suspect was not an asylum seeker and probably is not a Muslim. Some descended into riots complete with looting. Dozens of police have been injured. Fortunately, no deaths have occurred. In some areas, counter-demonstration by opponents of racism and members of the Muslim community took place, largely peacefully. The wave now seems to have subsided and hundreds are being processed through the U.K. courts on various charges relating to disorder, riot, looting and racially aggravated behavior.

There's a lot to unpack here. The first thing to note is that rioting is an occasional feature in U.K. life. There were outbreaks in 1981 and in 2011, both—as, on this occasion—in high summer.

The second issue is whether the U.K. has a particular far-right problem. Certainly compared to other European countries, that is unproven. If you make the assumption that Reform U.K. is broadly representative of far right support—and that is probably an exaggeration—support in the U.K. (Reform got 14% of the vote in the general election) is probably similar to that in Germany or Spain, and runs below that of France, Italy or Austria. I will leave it to U.S. readers to assess the comparable figure in the States.

What is different is the way the far right seem to be operating. In the past, there have often been a number of far-right parties who have waxed and waned without achieving a significant breakthrough. And the Conservative Party has not been immune to sending out dog whistles to secure support from the right: Even Margaret Thatcher was willing to use the word "swamped" in relation to immigration. What the riots revealed was a "leaderless" movement, seemingly powered by the internet. Telegram and—surprise, surprise—"X" appear to have been the main conduits to spread rumors, falsehoods and organize protests. Elon Musk seems to have been more than happy to amplify postings which did much to stoke tension and a number of U.K. politicians have expressed their displeasure at his activities, though whether they will be able to do anything about it remains to be seen.

It is also striking how quickly the protests turned against specifically the Muslim community. Frankly, Islamophobia is now a major problem in the U.K. Some established journalists, such as Melanie Phillips, have made very successful careers promoting it and have always found outlets willing to publish or broadcast their views—particularly The Daily Telegraph and, now, the GB News television channel (which currently employs Farage, paying him £100,000 a month). On the right, it has become almost fashionable to take this stance. The conflicts in Israel/Palestine have exacerbated the problem as, indeed, has the Bharatiya Janata Party's brand of Hindu nationalism in India, which appears to be transferring to the U.K.

I doubt if the U.K. is heading towards civil war, as suggested by Musk, but it is difficult to assess where we go from here. Unsurprisingly, the Muslim community is very unsettled by recent events. It is unclear how far Reform U.K.—or, more specifically, Farage, who uses it very much as his own private political vehicle—will exploit the situation. Most interesting is the position of the still shell-shocked Conservative Party. Adopting Reform lite policies may help recover votes lost in July, at least on the right, but could further alienate those who were lost or almost lost to the left or center. Perhaps once the new leader is selected, we will have a clearer picture.

And now, A.B. in Lichfield, England, UK with a more zoomed-in view on the role of Musk/eX-Twitter:

I think both S.T. and I were slightly taken aback when (Z) first forwarded us a question over "arrests related to tweets in the UK." The emphasis on tweets, rather than on the tragic murder of three young girls aged 6 to 9, maybe showed us how the news emphasis can shift between countries. S.T.'s attempt to outline the broader context may be helpful for American readers, but if the core focus is "arrests related to tweets," I would make this much simpler:

• On July 29, a violent knife attack at a Taylor Swift-themed dance party resulted in the deaths of 3 young girls and critical injuries to 10 children and adults.
  
  
• Because the alleged assailant was a minor under the age of 18, he couldn't be named under U.K. law.
  
  
• The gap in information led to misinformation spreading on social media, including the false accusation that the assailant was an immigrant with an Arabic name.
  
  
• It was subsequently revealed that the assailant was a British citizen born in Wales to Rwandan parents.
  
  
• The misinformation led to Islamophobic riots breaking out, primarily in England and Northern Ireland; mosques and hotels hosting asylum seekers were attacked and dozens of police injured.
  
  
• These riots were exacerbated by a network of far-right racists and (allegedly) organized criminal gangs.
  
  
• After a week and a half, the riots were effectively brought under control by a combination of a robust police presence and accelerated arrests and sentencing for those involved in the riots.
  
  
• As of this writing, there have been over 1,000 arrests, and around 400 individuals have been formally charged (some with multiple charges).
  
  
• The situation is still developing, but as of this writing, 111 individuals have been convicted, with 101 convictions resulting in prison sentences.
  
  
• A very small number of these convictions have been for using social media to incite violence. I count no more than 10 convictions out of the broader total.
  
  
• These social media convictions have been for statements along the lines of "Every man and their dog should be smashing [the] f**k out [of the] Britannia hotel" (which was housing more than 200 refugees) and "Don't protect the mosques. Blow the mosque up with the adults in it."

If I'm reading the query from (Z) correctly, these bare facts have been turned into some sort of culture war nonsense about people being arrested for sending out tweets. Somewhere in there, the tragic loss of three young lives has been forgotten, and the emphasis has shifted to idiocy over suppression of freedom of speech, while Elon Musk meanwhile sends out unhelpful "tweets" about how "civil war is inevitable in the UK," as if he'd know.

When it comes to freedom of speech, we have no precise equivalent to the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights in the U.K. But I'm not sure this matters much. Even if we use the U.S. context, as Oliver Wendell Holmes famously noted in the Schenck v. United States in 1919, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." U.K. courts have simply decided that, in a limited number of cases relating to recent unrest incited by far-right misinformation, online incitement to violence is little different to in-person incitement.

Again, that the murder of three small girls by a potentially mentally disturbed young man has somehow been lost in this discussion of social media free speech is one of the most disappointing and disturbing aspects of this case.

Thanks for explaining, S.T. and A.B.; this is why we go to the horse's mouth.

The U.K. might, or might not, be able to do anything about the harms done on social media in general, and eX-Twitter in particular. But keep reading for an item about a country that DID try to do something about it. (Z)

MuskWatch, Part III: The Boys of Brazil

A.B. in Lichfield is right that, at least in the U.S., the tragedy in the U.K. has become a culture wars thing (it does not help that it involves Taylor Swift, who enrages many conservatives, and Elon Musk, who enrages many liberals). There is also another eX-Twitter-centered culture wars battle unfolding right now, nearly 6,000 miles from London.

What happened, in brief, is that authorities in Brazil noticed that eX-Twitter often contains false and/or defamatory information. They told Elon Musk & Co. to knock it off, and nothing was changed. So, Brazilian supreme court Justice Alexandre de Moraes ordered that the platform be blocked in Brazil, which it was.

This dust-up has actually been unfolding for months, with Musk's responses invariably taking the form of temper tantrums. As Brazilian authorities turned up the heat, Musk shut down eX-Twitter's Brazilian office and terminated all the employees. He and his ventriloquist dummy Linda Yaccarino have since spent much time griping about censorship and persecution and yada, yada, yada. They have done nothing to address the Brazilian government's concerns, incidentally.

As chance would have it, this story has become a subject of much interest among Americans, particularly American right-wingers. These folks are, of course, convinced that conservative voices in general, and the voice of Musk in particular, are being silenced worldwide. Never mind that, in nearly all cases, Musk (and his fellow eX-Twitter users) get to say anything they want anytime they want. Anyhow, the NFL season opens this week, and the second game of the season (on Friday, at 5:15 p.m. PT) will feature the Green Bay Packers facing off against the Philadelphia Eagles in... São Paulo, Brazil.

Why is an American football league, which plays American (i.e., gridiron) football playing a game in Brazil? You will have to ask Commissioner Roger Goodell about that. Something about growing the game internationally, just in case Brazilians lose interest in association football (i.e., soccer). In any case, for the first time in a decade, there will be an NFL game with no live-tweeting from reporters, fans, or anyone else on the scene. Among many on the right, this is being treated as an offense against their freedoms on par with Jim Crow or the Stamp Act. There are many demands to relocate the game back to the U.S. This is not going to happen.

We don't know exactly how long the sturm und drang will last; probably it will expire shortly after the Packers defeat the Eagles. In any event, when paired with the U.K. story, it shows that dealing with the nonsense that eX-Twitter propagates is tough, regardless of what national law allows. (Z)

Trump Just Can't Be Wrong...

At risk of being trite, note that three-quarters of the word "News" is the word "new." And it is very difficult to write about a subject unless there is something new to discuss. Otherwise, you end up just repeating yourself.

Donald Trump seems never to have learned this lesson. Or maybe, as someone who loves, loves, loves attention, he learned it all too well. Whatever the case may be, as he has returned to the campaign trail, he has done an excellent job of keeping seemingly adverse stories alive by adding new detail for reporters to cover. We'll give a couple of examples from just this week (which, by the way, isn't even half over).

Example #1 involves his interference with the 2020 election. Trump really should let that sleeping dog lie, as much as possible, because he is still under indictment, and most swing/independent voters look upon 1/6 and its associated shenanigans unfavorably.

The problem here is that Trump convinced himself long ago that he's not only correct, but he's the victim here. And, given his personality, he has a powerful need to trumpet that from the highest rooftops, as often as is possible. Over the weekend, he did yet another interview with yet another fawning Fox personality. And in response to one of the softball questions, about how the claims of election interference "never seem to end," Trump decided to mix some humblebragging with some martyrdom talk: "It's so crazy that my poll numbers go up. Whoever heard you get indicted for interfering with a presidential election where you have every right to do it?"

Naturally, what everyone (except Fox) zoomed in on was the bit about "you have every right to do it." That is not all that dissimilar from declaring: "Why is it a murder if you had every right to kill the person?" In other words, he effectively admitted (yet again) to the key element of the crime. He and his lawyers are really, really hoping he doesn't actually go on trial, because all the prosecution will need for a conviction is to play footage of Trump interviews.

Example #2 involves the visit to Arlington. At this point, it is clear that was a mistake. The smart thing to do would be to drop it; the story would surely fade in memory as it is supplanted by newer, fresher outrages. But Trump and his team just can't let it go, and so keep adding new layers to the story (allowing it to live for another news cycle, and another, and another).

The latest line from Team Trump, first advanced by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) and former representative Tulsi Gabbard, was that the visit to Arlington was actually supposed to be a bipartisan event, with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris in attendance. However, the claim goes, Biden and Harris could not be bothered to show up, and so snubbed the Afghanistan dead. Only the noble Trump cared enough to commemorate the anniversary.

First of all, whether Harris or Biden (or both) appeared at the ceremony, it was still illegal to campaign there. Federal law is very clear on this point, and makes no exceptions for sitting or former presidents/VPs. Second, the story does not remotely pass the smell test. When was the last time Trump endeavored to make ANYTHING bipartisan? Even the most important traditional demonstrations of bipartisanship, most obviously attending the inauguration, Trump brushed aside. The White House later confirmed that Biden and Harris were never contacted about the event.

We recognize that the White House COULD be lying here. That said, if we have to play "who's the liar?" between Trump and Biden/Harris, well, Occam's Razor helps us answer that question with great ease. It is also the case that only one of these three people actually showed up and posed for crass "thumbs up" photos. Oh, and only one of these three people has advanced three or four different stories about why their actions were totally OK, and anyone who thinks otherwise has mental problems.

Again, the correct thing to do here is to drop the whole thing and wait for it to blow over. But Trump just can't do it, which is why his return to the hustings has to have his campaign staff sweating bullets. (Z)

...And He Also Doesn't Speak English Very Well

Given that Donald Trump has returned to the campaign trail, and given that he cannot help but declare, over and over, that he is a "genius" with a "high IQ," a study from a few years back (2018) is making the rounds again. It's an analysis of the first 30,000 unscripted words uttered, as president, by the 15 holders of that office from Herbert Hoover to Donald Trump. Here are the numbers, from most erudite to least:

President	Grade Level
Herbert Hoover	11.3
Jimmy Carter	10.7
Barack Obama	9.7
Gerald Ford	9.4
Dwight D. Eisenhower	9.4
Richard Nixon	9.4
Bill Clinton	9.3
John F. Kennedy	8.8
Ronald Reagan	8.0
Lyndon B. Johnson	7.6
Franklin D. Roosevelt	7.4
George W. Bush	7.4
George H.W. Bush	6.7
Harry S. Truman	5.9
Donald Trump	4.6

These numbers are calculated using the Flesch-Kincaid scale, which was developed in the 1970s by the Department of Defense, so as to make sure that training manuals were properly readable for recruits.

Let's start with some of the cautions that must be kept in mind. First, many politicians—especially the very skilled ones—engage in code-switching. Put more colloquially, they "dumb things down" when speaking to a broad audience, knowing that you need to be able to connect with everyone, not just the eggheads. It's not a coincidence that the two highest scores go to presidents who had lost nearly all connection with the voting public by the end of their terms in office.

There are also some biases that are clearly built in to the system. First, inasmuch as Flesch-Kincaid was calibrated to 1970s speech, it tends to produce lower scores for more recent presidents. Second, it seems pretty clear that there is some sort of bias against Southerners, as four of the bottom six acquired their language skills substantially in that region. Put another way, there is no way that George H.W. Bush (born in New England, but spent the formative years of his young adulthood in Texas) was actually less erudite than Ronald Reagan. (By the way, today's posting checks in at an 8.3, putting us right between St. Ronnie and JFK.)

With all that said, there is no way to spin it away, the numbers are very bad for Trump. He is well below second-to-last-place Harry S. Truman, the only 20th century president without a college diploma. And there is reason to believe that Trump's number, poor as it is, may actually be overselling him. First, the scale actually only goes down to "fifth grade," so he's got the lowest score possible. In fact, he technically has a lower score than is supposed to be the minimum possible. Second, this study is 6 years old, and Trump has clearly declined over that timeframe. A new analysis would not do him any favors.

So, is there any point to this, other than crapping on Donald Trump? Yes, we think so. First, it's a stone-cold reminder that he engages in projection, and that the more often he insists upon a thing, the less likely it is to be true (also see above). Everything about the man, from his words, to his policy ideas, to the evaluations of those who have worked closely with him, says he's just not very bright. The numbers back that up (this is also why he will never, ever take an actual IQ test, despite his obsession with IQ).

Second, it's no secret that Trump has rapidly converted non-college white voters into Republicans. It's fair to say that, at least in part, that is because he speaks their language—literally. Again, we acknowledge that some presidents "dumbed it down." Bill Clinton, for example, is most certainly not of "average" intelligence, even among presidents. But nobody can deliberately dumb it down as much as Trump has.

Third, this probably also helps explain, to some extent, why wannabe Trumpers struggle to connect with the base. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), J.D. Vance, etc. are more than happy to say whatever they think they need to say in order to advance their political prospects. But, in the end, they are all Ivy League-educated men with advanced degrees. Either they are too smart, or are not good enough actors to be able to speak like Trump does.

"Speak Like a Fourth Grader" is not likely to be a chapter in The Art of the Deal (revised edition) or any other book Trump produces (with help from a ghost writer, naturally). But it is part of the secret of his success, such as it is. (Z)

Today's Senate Polls

Interestingly, the Virginia poll matches almost exactly the 2020 presidential numbers (Biden 54%, Trump 44%). If the presidential results are in line with the Senate results, that will be happy news for Kamala Harris. (Z)

State	Democrat	D %	Republican	R %	Start	End	Pollster
Tennessee	Gloria Johnson	40%	Marsha Blackburn*	60%	Jul 25	Sep 02	Activote
Virginia	Tim Kaine*	55%	Hung Cao	45%	Jul 24	Sep 01	Activote

* Denotes incumbent

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger